exclude_frames

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already mark the tool as non-read-only and non-destructive. The description adds that the change is deferred until pipeline_run/stack and is reversible by passing an empty list, which is useful behavioral context beyond the annotation flags.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Two compact sentences front-load the core action and then state timing and clearing behavior. Every clause contributes meaningful information without padding.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a simple two-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers the essential behavior, timing, and reset path. It is nearly complete, though the optional reason parameter is not described and persistence/save implications are left implicit.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description must carry parameter meaning. It does clarify that indexes are blink indices and that an empty list clears exclusions, but it leaves the optional 'reason' parameter entirely unexplained.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Drop frames (by blink index) from the light group before stacking.' This clearly identifies the tool's function and distinguishes it from frame-review tools like blink_frames or scan_frames by tying the action to a stacking exclusion list.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

It gives explicit context for use: the exclusion list is 'applied by pipeline_run / stack,' so agents know this tool configures a future step rather than acting immediately. It also explains how to clear the list, but it does not explicitly name an alternative or say when not to use it.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.